Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 174577

I think this discussion has run its course. It's been several days at 
least since anything substantive has been added to the debate, and nor 
is there likely to be in the future. So before it devolves into endless 
rehashings of the same points, I'm going to make a few general comments, 
then bow out.

It should be apparent both from a casual reading of the texts and from 
JKR's own words, that the focus throughout the series has been on the 
morality of the UCs. JKR certainly spills a lot more ink over it than 
she does their legal status.


Goblet of Fire
--------------

We aren't introduced to the UCs until chapter 14 of Goblet of Fire, "The 
Unforgivable Curses", in which DE/Moody both introduces and demonstrates 
them to his class, with spiders as his victims. In the passage, Moody 
makes mulitiple references to their legality: "illegal Dark Arts 
curses", "most heavily punished by wizarding law", "earn a life sentence 
in Azkhaban", and so forth. Clearly, the UCs are illegal. But that's 
hardly a point against their immorality, and for all his talk, it's not 
Moody's words, but the reaction of the students, that sets the tone of 
this passage. And clearly the students aren't listening to a lecture on 
Cushioning Charms. These are Curses whose very names are spoken in 
shuddering whispers, who mere mention causes students to turn white with 
fear. Because they're illegal? Get real.

Mike> Above, I have explained my position on a moral use of the
Mike> Imperious Curse.... I will also add that Crucio seems to be
Mike> an efficient and effective way to stun.

When the WW already has an effective Stunning Spell? C'mon, Mike, you're 
reaching. You're also, apparently, forgetting your Latin: "crucio" (from 
"cruciare" (v.)) -- "I torture"; "cruciatus" (n.) -- "torture, torment". 
There IS only one purpose for the Cruciatus, and it's no Tickling Charm. 
You sure you want to be arguing for a moral use of torture? In any case, 
if the UCs are neither moral nor immoral, why are they described as 
sitting at the pinnacle of the Dark Arts?

So what of DE/Moody's special dispensation to use them in DADA? Surely 
that proves they're not unforgivable. But it should be noted that 
DE/Moody only performs one (not "them", as Mike incorrectly noted) of 
the curses on the students, and it's doubtful that, for obvious reasons, 
the dispensation extended byond the Imperius. The most that can be 
argued, then, is that the Imperius is not strictly unforgivable.

And yet, the text may not even support that much. I'm not convinced 
DE/Moody ever had permission to perform the curse ON the students. Note 
the wording:

"I'm not supposed to show you what illegal Dark curses look like until 
you're in the sixth year.... But Professor Dumbledore's got a higher 
opinion of your nerves.... How are you supposed to defend yourself 
against something you've never seen?" And Harry's later query on the way 
back to the Gryffindor Common Room: "Wouldn't Moody and Dumbledore be in 
trouble with the Ministry if they knew we'd seen the curses?"

 From my reading, it appears Dumbledore's permission was no more than a 
special dispensation to SHOW the curses two years earlier than usual. 
DE/Moody may well have been acting beyond his purview in Imperiusing the 
students (but then he was a DE, after all). Is it ever stated that 
DE/Moody had permission to Imperius the students?


Hermione's Objection
--------------------

In OotP, chapter 32, "Out of the Fire", as Umbridge attempts to Crucio 
Harry, Hermione blurts out, "Professor Umbridge -- it's illegal.... The 
Ministry wouldn't want you to break the law ... !"

I return to an earlier point: granted the UCs are illegal, Hermione is 
correct. So what? Many immoral things are illegal. BECAUSE they're 
immoral. Hermione's objection on legal grounds hardly says anything one 
way or the other about their morality.

Secondly, Hermione is engaged in a desparate attempt to dissuade 
Umbridge from using the Cruciatus on Harry. Since Umbridge has already 
demonstrated all the ethical compunctions of a loaf of moldy bread, it's 
probable that any appeal to conscience would have been a waste of good 
breath. Hermione's appeal to the law and the Ministry -- of which 
Umbridge was of course a member -- was in all likelihood simply a 
tactical strategy. That is, at any rate, how I interpret the passage. In 
any case, it's difficult to see how anyone can point to this passage and 
say, "See! They're 'unforgivable' because the Ministry says so!"


Sirius on the Unforgivables
----------------------------

The passage from GoF, "Padfoot Returns" has been quoted often enough; I 
won't repeat it here. The conclusions of the passage are inescapable:

1. Sirius is providing a moral assessment of Crouch -- "ruthless" and 
"cruel" are hardly legal judgments -- and the Unforgivables are the 
specific example he provides of that cruelty.

2. Sirius' assessment is trustworthy. That his description of Crouch is 
spot on is evident through comparison of what we know of Crouch from 
other sources, such as Dumbledore's memories in the pensieve. That 
Crouch IS ruthless and cruel is not just Sirius' take; it cannot simply 
be dismissed as the misrememberances of an aggrieved man. It is, in 
fact, the voice of the author, speaking through Sirius, that we are 
hearing in this passage.

And if Sirius is spot-on in his moral assessment of Crouch, we have no 
choice but to accept his take on the immorality of the UCs as well. The 
Ministry may have the power, Sirius (and JKR) is saying, to set aside 
the legal proscriptions, but even the MoM cannot assuage the moral 
damage their use has caused.


The Author Speaks
-----------------

Which brings us to the central passage in this debate.

Which brings us to the scene at the center of the debate. I begin by 
noting JKR's own words, when challenged (by a member of this group, I 
believe) about Harry's Cruciatus: "Harry's no saint." Clearly, JKR had 
intended to make a moral statement about Harry, and to do so she chose a 
UC. The whole scene would hardly work if Harry's act were the moral 
equivalent of jaywalking. There can be only one conclusion: the UCs, by 
the design and intent of the author, carry moral weight, and not for the 
good.


Harry in Ravenclaw Commons
--------------------------

It's war. Harry is mad with grief. He's watched friends die, he's passed 
within inches of death himself on multiple occasions. His Cruciatus is 
understandable.

Is it? Understandable, maybe. Unfathomable, certainly. In "The Seven 
Potters" Harry fights a desparate battle, outnumbered four to one by 
AK-wielding DEs, passing within millimeters of death with his friends 
risking their own lives on his behalf. Yet he never succumbs to a UC.

We're supposed to believe that Harry Potter, who had seen death a 
hundred times, who had demonstrated time and again, in the most dire and 
perilous of circumstances, a level-headed coolness well beyond his 
years, was, in the Ravenclaw Commons, pushed beyond the snapping point 
by a -- Death Expectorator? A Salivating Slytherin? A Loogie Launcher? A 
Hocking Henchman?

And less than an hour later we find Harry engaged in desparate battle 
once again, this time against Malfoy, Crabbe and Doyle in the Room of 
Requirements, once again watching his friends passed within inches of death:

"'It's that Mudblood! Avada Kedavra!'

"Harry saw Hermione dive aside, and his fury that Crabbe had aimed to 
kill wiped all else from his mind. He shot a Stunning Spell at Crabbe...."

Harry's outrage at Amycus' act is supposed to excuse his use of the 
Cruciatus. But then what of the duel in the Room of Requirement? With 
Malfoy, Crabbe and Doyle furiously battling our heroic trio, with spells 
ricocheting off every wall, with Malfoy and Crabbe throwing AKs at his 
two best friends, with Harry's mind white-hot with fury over Hermione's 
near-death experience, what spells does he choose? Expelliarmus and a 
couple of Stupefys. It's Carrow's spittle, in the end, not Crabbe's AK, 
that earns a UC in reply.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I understand what JKR was attempting with 
the Ravenclaw Commons scene. Unfortunately, I think she botched the 
execution.

Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan